Pages

Saturday, March 22, 2014

Kings and Constitutions

Among the other interesting ideas presented by Michael Davis in his essay ‘Why I’m a Monarchist’, there is this, which all those who profess deep devotion to written constitutions ought to consider:

. . . Truly, we have nothing that can contend with Monarchy. We have no body in government whose authority is exercised purely in the interest of making our lives more rich and humane. We have no such living vehicle of the wisdom passed down to us by our ancestors. We have the Constitution, yes, and it’s undeniably an essential feature of American civil society. But what does the Constitution do to ensure our people are represented with dignity abroad? Where is its guarantor in the halls of government, prepared to stand against the tide of partisanism in defense of the core virtues it enlists?

The Constitution is meant to embody the spirit of our laws, our liberties, and our political order. Yet it’s a body without arms, without legs, without a voice, without a conscience. It has no will of its own, and so can be employed in the service of whoever can mumble its contents—not as a shield to defend us, the people, but as a sword for those who would call themselves our governors.

Monarchy is, most simply, the rule of law and the spirit of a people incarnate. It’s the avatar of a nation, the vessel for its ancient spirit. Our Founders decided to handle the spirit only, to do away with the body and accept what Hannan calls the most sublime form of English common law. But it seems this ideal is so sublime as to be imperceptible: as soon as it appeared, it was gone. So often we need that intermediary, someone to devote himself entirely to what we cannot do casually. Order, law, liberty, dignity, beauty—the whole organism of tradition—none of these are best served by television debates and twelve hours of voting once every couple of years. They must have their constant minister. . . .

And on this same topic of kings, Mike Church had this exchange with Srdja Trifkovic in a radio interview:

Mike: I have been enjoying your writing for years at Chronicles, including your ruminations about our modern demonization of monarchy and how you’re trying to figure out: How did this greatest and oldest form of government get to the station in life where it’s regarded as something that is the equivalent of Satan himself? I know that’s not our subject today, but I just wanted to let you know that I’ve been reading it with great interest. Keep writing about it because I find it fascinating.

Trifkovic: Well, some of the most stable democracies in the world are monarchies, such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. If you have a head of state, it’s far better to have someone with established credentials that transcend the volatile barometer of daily politics. Of course, the optimum form would be an absolute monarchy with a benevolent Christian ruler, but we’re a little bit beyond that, I’m afraid.

Yes, and perhaps the South can help in that revival.Though professing a devotion for republican ideals like political equality and liberty, she has (thankfully) respected the hierarchy seen and heard and felt a bit more than these abstract, ungrounded, disembodied principles of the airy realms of the mind.Furthermore, there has been a pronounced friendliness toward kingship since her beginning.She was founded by royalists, and king-friends continually show forth throughout her history, from Patrick Henry to the gentry after the War of Northern Aggression to the 20th century Agrarian writer Andrew Lytle.

May we be a good ensample to the world by working to restore a Christian king here in the Southland (which also means working hard to restore the Orthodox Christian Faith of our forefathers here as well).